About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
or not he should be charged or rather he should be classified as an enemy combatant. lindsey graham was on of the chat shows yesterday, said absolutely. this guy is not a common criminal. he was out to kill americans. what do you think? enemy combatant? >> well, there are some people who think that enemy commits an act of terrorism should be tried in our criminal carts and others think they should be designated as enemy combatants. it's complicated question and seems to me what this administration should be looking at is what is the best way to get this person -- to bring him to justice, and also the best route to insure that we get the best information we can because that information could be helpful in prehave noting additional attacks in the future and that could provide answers which could bring some measure of closure to the victims as the families. i suspect what's going on now is you're having a talk in the administration looking at all the information and deciding what's the best way to treat both of those objectives. >> steve: at this point it sounds like what the governmen
is one way to achieve something but, what we're trying to achieve, what lindsey graham, and kelly ayotte are trying to achieve, that is the most important thing. our priority here should be, i think, not to punish these perpetrators. not to prosecute them. not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose right now should be, we have somebody in custody who may know of other terrorist plots of other terrorist cells, who has information that may save lives and prevent future bombings. the question is, can we get that information from him, or are we going to do i think what now has been done, tell him he has the right to remain silent and we're going to remain ignorant of the information he has even if that means other people will be killed in terrorist attacks in the future. this is a decision we've made. i think it is a mistaken decision to say we're going to remain ignorant and we're not going, we're going to let him have the right to remain silent, aside from all the prosecution, aside from all other issues. we're remaining ignorant by choice. >> host: here are headlines. "washington post" sa
to achieve with lindsey graham and kelly, that is the most important thing. our priority should be not to punish these perpetrators, not to prosecute them, not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be that we have somebody in custody that may know of other terrorist plots and terrorist cells that has information that could save lives. can they get information from them? tell them that he has the right to remain silent and we are going to remain ignorant of the information that he has, even if that means that other people will be killed and a terrorist act in the future. it is a mistaken decision to say that we will remain ignorant. aside from all of the prosecution and issues. we are remaining ignorant right choice. >> officials say the boston bombing suspects are apparently motivated by religion. no terrorist group ties. -- brother's mastermind masterminded the attack. they worked independently. does that change your opinion? >> i have great respect for the media. i spent many years as a journalist. we get things wrong. how do we know? can you tell me who trained them?
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5